W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2008

Re: supporting both formats html5 & xhtml5 re: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#xhtml5

From: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:24:11 +1300
To: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Cc: "Preston L. Bannister" <preston@bannister.us>, ryan <ryan@theryanking.com>, Shawn Medero <soypunk@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <4786389B.9040703@55.co.nz>

Ben Boyle wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2007 10:36 PM, Preston L. Bannister <preston@bannister.us> wrote:
>   
>> The advantage to XHTML lies in server-side XML-based processing pipelines,
>> not in the browser.  Once you come to that realization, then you have to ask
>> whether a server-side rendering to HTML is in fact the more optimal choice.
>>     
>
> An interesting point, but I think this is highly dependent on whether
> you are publishing information primarily for browsers. Personally I
> like a combination of atom and html, both generated from a single
> source of data (for which I prefer XML). HTML is for the browsers,
> atom for feed readers and other (potential) consumers/aggregators. I
> use XHTML within Atom (personal preference to avoid CDATA where I
> can).
>
> I do agree: "the advantage to XHTML lies in server-side XML-based
> processing pipelines"
>   

That is of course just one advantage of XHTML.

> I don't specifically need browsers to support XHTML - I certainly
> don't need the specification to mandate any compliance.

To be frank with you, and I'm not trying to be rude here, but; I really 
don't care about what *you* need. We are writing this spec not just for 
us, but for the rest of the world to use. What you or I want or need for 
ourselves shouldn't come into it.

> When I stop to
> think about it, browser support for XML+XSLT (including HTML output)
> would be more valuable (to me) than XHTML support. One day, if/when it
> is well established in UAs and AT. Until then, it seems beyond the
> scope of this WG but an interesting topic ~:)
>   

How can it be "beyond the scope of this working group"? XHTML (whether 
you want to call it XHTML5 or just XHTML) is part of the scope. And 
support for any area of the spec is within the scope of the group.

from: http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter#scope
>
>
>     Scope
>
> This group will maintain and produce incremental revisions to the HTML 
> specification. Both XML and 'classic HTML' syntaxes will be produced.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>     Deliverables
>
>
>       New publications and Milestones
>
> There is a single specification deliverable for the HTML Working 
> Group, the HTML specification, a platform-neutral and 
> device-independent design with the following items in scope:
>
>     * [snip]
>     * An extensible, serialized form of such a language, using XML.
>

"An extensible, serialized form of such a language, using XML." is of 
course XHTML.


Thanks,
Dean Edridge
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 15:24:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:29 UTC